First he wanted to acquire Twitter. Then he tried to get out of the deal. Then he was forced to go through with it anyway. And after that he kept talking about how acquiring Twitter was vitally important to preserve free speech. However, he didn't actually want to buy it but was forced. So apparently he changed his mind on free speech in the middle of the process? Was free speech important or not? Or was it just important after he was forced to go through with the acquisition?
Please tell me how claiming that free speech is the most important thing and therefore acquiring Twitter was very important, after he desperately tried to get out of the deal?
Yes, but if having a 25% ownership stake in Tesla is that important, why did he decide to sell a ton of shares? In fact, if he hadn't sold, he would have been close to 25%, but not above it, right?
So again, please tell me how he can claim that owning 25% of Tesla is vitally important to him after he dumped a ton of shares and contributed to crashing Tesla stock?
Because, again, if acquiring Twitter was extremely important, why did he try to get out of the deal?
If owning 25% of Tesla was extremely important, why did he dump tons of shares and sell significantly down in the company?
How are these not mutually exclusive? They do not add up as far as I can tell. Even just looking at the Twitter acquisition his actions and words were self-contradictory (said it was very important to acquire Twitter, but tried to not do it).
I can only share my personal opinion of course. And I am also hoping someone will explain to me what I'm missing here, so that I can see how his actions actually do match his words. I just don't see that at the moment.
I used to be a huge fan of his. I would love for there to be an explanation to this that doesn't make him look like either a liar or someone who's extremely confused and/or erratic.
You can read these old articles for the why:
"According to an SEC filing, Musk has offered to acquire all the shares in Twitter he does not own for $54.20 per share, valuing the company at $41.4 billion. That represents a 38% premium over the closing price on April 1, the last trading day before Musk disclosed that he had become
Twitter’s biggest shareholder, and an 18% premium over its closing price Wednesday."
"Musk said the cash offer was his “best and final offer,” according to the SEC filing, adding that if it’s not accepted he would have to reconsider his position as a shareholder."
It's mostly that he overpaid when Twitter was highly priced (TSLA was $300+ around that time in 2022), he offered more on top and signed paperwork (because I doubt a verbal comment is enforceable) to do it, then changed his mine when the market started pulling back a bit.
I'm guessing this is like saying you'll buy a home with no inspections nor contingencies and here is my serious offer in a legal document, then you change your mind and say, nah, I didn't want it "really" that much, so we'll go to court and say you had a contract breach. As usual Musk fashion, when the court case gets close, you settle because you were probably going to lose in court anyways (like the solar roof lawsuit threats) and he was stuck with it.
I don't have much to comment on the comp plan other than even if he gets the 51 billion comp plan, I've read they'll have to issue another plan soon after for him to have over 25% stake. One question I do have is if it's about control, can the board just settle this by giving him higher voting power stock, but not dilute any existing shareholders instead? This is done for other firms, but it's done pre-IPO. From the supporters, it seems like shareholders would win giving him control, but not further and further dilution to get to 25%.